About this Web Site

[last update:
2009/12/13]

This web site is written by Alan Cheetham. I can be
contacted at:

I am an engineer with 30 years experience including
extensive scientific training, data analysis, modeling and statistics. I have
several published papers dealing with data modeling. Although I am not a
"climate scientist" by trade, my knowledge and training enables me
to scientifically evaluate the data and the scientific studies.

When I began to look into the science behind the global
warming issue, I started to realize that the scientific debate is not over
(the political debate may be over, but it shouldn't be) -- because the
science doesn't match the scary scenarios portrayed by the media. So I
started documenting my findings on this web site.

Unfortunately, the media do not provide a balanced
portrayal of the issue -- the media are in the business of selling fear, and
if global warming is not the end of the world, there is no story.

Science and the Scientific Method

Science: study of the physical and
natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and
experiment (Dictionary)

Formulation of an hypothesis to
explain the phenomena - usually in the form of a causal mechanism or a
mathematical relation.

Use of the hypothesis to
quantitatively predict the results of new observations (or the
existence of other related phenomena).

Performance of experimental
tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and
properly performed experiments.

In the case of global warming science, political ideology
has now overcome the scientific method -- steps 3 and 4 have been thwarted by
those with too much to gain from the scare stories. We are stuck with step two:
1: warming has been observed; 2: CO2 has been hypothesized as the cause. Many
scientists are currently involved in steps 3 and 4, but they are called
"deniers" because they won't go along with the political bandwagon
without scientific justification.

There are two basic types of scientific endeavor:

Theoretical science – in which models are created based
on the theory underlying the phenomenon (in modern times these are
created as computer models to generate predictions). Knowledge of the
underlying phenomenon is required.

Empirical science – in which data observations are
analyzed to create prediction models. Knowledge of data analysis and
statistics is required.

In both cases, this represents step 2 of the scientific
method and the science is not complete until proceeding through step 4.

Climate science as promoted by the IPCC is based on
computerized theoretical climate models and running “scenarios” to predict
the future. When the observations from the empirical side don’t match the
models, they change the data. This is not real science.

According to the IPCC, the climate change until 1970 can
be explained by the theoretical computer climate models based on natural
climate forcings; after 1970 the models can only explain the warming based on
anthropogenic CO2. This web site documents the science providing ample
evidence that supports the rejection of the CO2 hypothesis.

The IPCC Attribution to CO2

The IPCC was set up in 1988 with the stated purpose of
assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant
for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change” -- i.e. the human cause was built-in before
the science was investigated.

Many in the media portray the
global warming issue as “the global average temperature has increased 0.8
degrees during the 20th century”. But climate scientists do not
claim that this was all due to CO2 – only since the 1970s. In a CRU email
between Edward Cook and Michael Mann in May 2001, Cook stated: “most researchers
in global change research would agree that the emergence of a clear
greenhouse forcing signal has really only occurred since after 1970. I am not debating this point,
although I do think that there still exists a
significant uncertainty as to the relative contributions of natural and
greenhouse forcing to warming during the past 20-30 years at least.”
[http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=228&filename=988831541.txt]

The figure below right
superimposes the CRU temperature anomalies on the IPCC graph of model
outputs. (IPCC 2007 AR4 Figure SPM-4 [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf])
In this figure, the blue shaded bands show the result climate model
simulations using only natural forcings. Red shaded bands show the result
model simulations including anthropogenic CO2.

This clearly shows that prior
to about 1973, the global warming is fully explained by climate models using
only natural forcings (i.e. no human CO2). The models need input of CO2 only
after about the mid-1970s – prior to 1970 all warming was natural,
according to the IPCC. (There is no empirical evidence relating CO2 to
the post-1970s warming as a causative factor. The only evidence is the fact
that the computer models require CO2 to produce warming.)

Irrelevance – The Debate is Over

As I have studied the science
involved with the global warming issue (and continue to do so), I have begun
to realize the irrelevance of the science. As Al Gore said: "The debate is over."
At first I misunderstood - I thought he was referring to the scientific
debate (which has many dissenters and much debate is going on, even if it's
not reported by the media). However, the political debate is over.

This is most disturbing - the
science is irrelevant. The IPCC was set up as a political process. The
political purpose of the IPCC can be summed up as the former Canadian
Environment Minister Christine Stewart put it in referring to the IPCC:
"No matter if the
science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate
change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in
the world." [Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998]. (See: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_History.htm)

However, I am in the minority that thinks science is
relevant and that the political process should not subvert science in this
manner.

On April 27, 2009, Obama addressed the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at its 146th annual meeting in Washington,
D.C. In his speech he said “Under
my administration, the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are
over.” [http://www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9539.abstract]. What a liar.